Ah, but Rob, you have to remember that people like JJJ and others in a similar state of hauteur always know better than any potential customer whether or not an ad is misleading. It takes incredible arrogance actually to believe that you understand what constitutes "too smooth" better than those poor peasants out there.

Funny because it appears that you (and Rob) are the ones doing most of the assumptions in this thread; about how all the consumers out there are smart enough to see through these lies and deceptions. I haven't seen a iota of evidence that supports these assumptions.

Indeed, the fact that many people in most countries consider it absolutely vital that a certain degree of advertising regulation exist would suggest that, au contraire, there are enough consumers out there that cannot, necessarily, see through these lies.

Baby, talk about assumptions, and talk about confusing fairydust with life-threatening realities, comparing oranges with bananas and speaking in Greek to an Inuit!

I marvel at the distance that is possible between an original concept and where the contrary arguments try to take that basic idea.

Whether Russ and I might or might not be isolated proves nothing; on the other hand, were I to be isolated with anyone on an intellectual level, then that wouldn't be bad company from my perspective!

;-)

Rob C

P.S. Reminds me of the 60s and the mini-skirt: there were thousands of people out there tutting and shaking their collective head about how silly those young girls were, how their legs were going to get fat in Nature's battle to provide protection against the cold... I suppose our new and present generation of young fogies would have banned Mary Quant and all the rest of them - no, stoned them, even, with rocks, in order to save those birds from themselves, so serious and morally questionable their crime against Nature!

Hardly. A stupid or ignorant view is stupid or ignorant no matter when it is aired. Plenty of people currently have old fashioned views on women or other races. And here are some contemporary women being racist.

Quote

It would appear that your understanding of arithmetic is lacking.

Nope it was their misunderstanding of maths that was the issue. See below.

Quote

There can be no real doubt that doubling the franchise will very probably double the number of irresponsible people allowed to vote. While the "menace" sentence is, to modern eyes and I suspect even at the time, verging on the hysterical, the assertion that "woman's suffrage would double the irresponsible vote" is disputable only by a similarly sexist assertion that a lower proportion of women is irresponsible than of men. Experience does not suggest that to be true.

Duh! And missing the point entirely. The ad is asserting men are better than women. Yet their maths is saying that women are in fact equal to men and that is why it is a bad use of maths. If when doubling the amount of voters [by adding women] it only doubles the irresponsibility, it means that men and women are equally irresponsible, thus contradicting their stance.

Ah, but Rob, you have to remember that people like JJJ and others in a similar state of hauteur always know better than any potential customer whether or not an ad is misleading. It takes incredible arrogance actually to believe that you understand what constitutes "too smooth" better than those poor peasants out there.

Interesting that you, Kikashi and Rob C are making personal attacks. It would be nice if you would try arguing your points using facts rather than by name calling and ad hominen attacks.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, JJJ, that when someone takes a position that he, because of superior wisdom, has the right to make purchasing decisions for people of "lesser" wisdom, that position represents a serious ad hominem attack on all those" lesser" people.

Interesting that you, Kikashi and Rob C are making personal attacks. It would be nice if you would try arguing your points using facts rather than by name calling and ad hominen attacks.

Even more surprising that you seem unable to read what I've written, and fail to understand what I have communicated.

Let me give it one, last, desperate try: yes, a load of crap is written in cosmetic advertising; the entire industry is built on dreams and wishful thinking; women buy either what they imagine might be the new flavour of the month or, alternatively, they stick with what they know and enjoy and feel works for them, becomes a part of their personality! For example: my wife was a Chanel 5 girl from the age of fifteen until she died; she'd use nothing else. I don't accept the idea some of you put forward that any woman is stupid enough to believe, think, imagine, dream, fantasize that a few applications of cream A is going to take ten years off her weathered skin, especially if she has ben knocking around on yachts! Even less will she think that cream B will remove fifteen of those delightfully sybaritic years.

Cosmetics have smell, they add texture and colour and all manner of artificial delights to what is, otherwise, the same thing that covers your ass. Women know perfectly well that Nature often needs a little helping hand, and why deny them the opportunity by legislating that their game, their mental adventure is making them victim to some imaginary crime, when all the time it makes them feel good? Were that not so, do you imagine that the cosmetics industry would be the backbone that supports the haute couture industry? Leave women in peace and stop trying to interfere with their pleasures and enjoyment; I have yet to see the sales lady with the Paulo Beretta 9mm standing beside the Revlon counter.

For God's sake, guys, don't try to tell them that you know better!

That's it: you understand or it flies right over your heads, or you think it condescending; for me, es igual.

As for ad hominems - well, if that's how you figure/interpret disagreement, that's also okay by me. I don't really give a damn. I'm happy with the women I know, have never found them a problem and I know, deep down inside of me, that they really are streets ahead of the majority of men that it has been my lot to meet and get to know. Which when you get to think about it, is neither surprising nor unexpected and damned good luck for us! If anyone doubts this, have a peep at the school/university results coming out in recent years.

Rawhead, as a newbie, welcome to the forum. After youíve been here a while, youíll learn that itís a waste of time to try to have a serious discussion with some members because of the reasons you and jjj mentioned, plus a tendency to switch the subject, misstate what you write and create straw men when it suits their argument. Iím not accusing anyone in this thread of anything. Iím just making a general observation.

Okay, how about a "specific" example of a "switched subject," a "misstement," and a "straw man." From the beginning the argument has been that "we" should put restrictions on the way certain companies advertise because it results in less intelligent people making "bad" decisions. That assumes that "we" are more intelligent than those other folks, so it's our reponsibility to keep those other folks from wasting their money. Where has the subject been "switched?" Where was the "misstatement?" Where was the "straw man?"

Okay, how about a "specific" example of a "switched subject," a "misstement," and a "straw man."

How about, for starters, uh.. the sentence that comes immediately after that one?

Quote

From the beginning the argument has been that "we" should put restrictions on the way certain companies advertise because it results in less intelligent people making "bad" decisions.

OK, so, who among us ever claimed that "we" know better than anybody?

The whole point of having regulatory bodies is that, while none of *us* might be qualified to make judgments, there *are* such things as going over board (e.g., in the case of false advertisements) and *those* cases need to be monitored and regulated by said bodies.

Can such regulatory bodies do no wrong? Of course they can, and if the debate were about this particular case and ruling then at least there's some hope for a constructive debate. However, some of you, apparently, think that no one can ever be in a position to put restrictions on the way certain companies advertise; i.e., you are suggesting that you are against *any* and *all* regulations against false advertising (note that this is the point I made in my first post, which Rob C decided not to address, and instead make puzzling ad hominem attacks on my internet handle name). If that is the case, then we are fundamentally at odds with one another, and I see no hope for a denouement.

The ad is asserting men are better than women. Yet their maths is saying that women are in fact equal to men and that is why it is a bad use of maths. If when doubling the amount of voters [by adding women] it only doubles the irresponsibility, it means that men and women are equally irresponsible, thus contradicting their stance.

Which is precisely what I wrote in response to your original post. Are you sure you're not Jack Koerner in disguise? Look at what you wrote originally, quoted below, and try to justify it.

The whole point of having regulatory bodies is that, while none of *us* might be qualified to make judgments, there *are* such things as going over board (e.g., in the case of false advertisements) and *those* cases need to be monitored and regulated by said bodies.

Where do those regulatory bodies come from? Do they descend from Heaven? Though none of "us" may be qualified to make judgments, these Heavenly regulatory bodies automatically contain people qualified to monitor "those" cases and regulate them? A term like "going overboard," indicates you feel better qualified than other people to make a judgment call about a human activity whose value is subjective. Murder, for instance, is a fact. There's the cadaver. But advertising isn't a fact. It's alsays a judgment call. Whether or not an ad is "going overboard" is a determination that needs to be made by the person viewing the ad. Yes, some people will make bad judgments, but that's all part of being free.

I have some friends who often tell me how stupid our individual congressmen are, and in the next breath talk about a problem that "government" needs to solve. When you can't connect those two ideas you're in real trouble.

Rawhead, as a newbie, welcome to the forum. After youíve been here a while, youíll learn that itís a waste of time to try to have a serious discussion with some members because of the reasons you and jjj mentioned, plus a tendency to switch the subject, misstate what you write and create straw men when it suits their argument. Iím not accusing anyone in this thread of anything. Iím just making a general observation.

That's very sound advice; you might also add that the ability to read and to understand what's just been read is a great help in keeping abreast of life here. Comes a time when having to explain the same thing over and over again becomes rather boring, and that leaves the game to those who haven't quite understood that it's over.

That's very sound advice; you might also add that the ability to read and to understand what's just been read is a great help in keeping abreast of life here. Comes a time when having to explain the same thing over and over again becomes rather boring, and that leaves the game to those who haven't quite understood that it's over.

;-)

Rob C

Consider, for example, the endless thread on "perspective" for some "perspective" on this point.

Since I've never even seen a 'clarity slider' or used any of the Portrait Professional style software, banning an image or images which rely on those tools has only a positive effect on business for me. Being referenced as the scout / photographer whose clients actually do look that good walking through the door while others are taking a professional hit for exaggerating the truth just raises my stock.

I agree that if the purpose of the ad is to show the results of the product's use and the image has been digitally altered to enhance said results it is misrepresentation. Then again I've never seen an In 'N Out or Carl's hamburger that looked like it does in the ads so if we're headed toward 100% accuracy in ad images people should prepare for a cold splash of reality across a wide variety of products. Those new fifty grand Rover Evoques are tiny. Way smaller than the wide lenses and stylized lighting represent.

Disappointed that the fly-girls were invisible. Regarding the teenage girl: is somebody (a letter-writer) claiming that teenage girls in school are/were NOT sexy? Anyone making such a claim must be a hermit, a pervert, or have absolutely no memory cells left whatsoever.